Assessment of EoI:196



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 196 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: It has high biodiversity value. High Endemism as is a Biodiversity hotspot.

Evidence B:The EOI has been submitted a local community, not Indigenous. Its significance lies mainly in two endangered antelopes - the Roan and Sitatunga antelopes, as well as a variety of birds and other species.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Forests ands important for carbon sinks.

Evidence B:The stable vegetation helps to mitigate against climate change. and create equilibrium.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: NA/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: High number of migrants in the region.

Evidence B:There is no evidence. the EOI has been submitted by an NGO . The Abasuba people however live in the area although they have largely been absorbed into the Luo group whose language they speak.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: A very significant cultural sites including shrines in the area.

Evidence B:There is explanation given as a historical record but none of it applies at the present time. Th e Abasuba are now hardly distinct from the Luo group. However, they still recognise their Abasuba roots.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: Biodiversity loss due to deforestation is very high. Siltation of the lake which leads to loss of aquatic life due to increased erosion rate around the lake.

Evidence B:The number of the Roan antelope has been reduced to 40 have and the Sitatunga is said to be also threatened with extinction. Habitat loss led to the reduction of forest to only 5 % and wildlife are also hunted for bush meat.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: There is good policy framework supported by both County and District Councils.

Evidence B:The protected areas are fenced and are strictly managed by government using the existing policy framework.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Both District and County government support IPLCs conservation work.

Evidence B:No local community has been given the responsibility of managing wildlife in that area.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Good foundation has been laid.

Evidence B:Not in Western Kenya but nationally there are many projects to provide scaling up.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Yes

Evidence B:The Homa Bay county Government to provide in kind contribution, the national government policies and regulations and the community are to provide green fencing.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 19/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 6/30

Average Total Score: 12.5/30



Performance of EoI 196 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The approach is targeting IPLCs in the area.

Evidence B:Not shown how it aligns.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: NA/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: Activities are good but budgeting is exaggerated.

Evidence B:The EOI proposes to put in place structures that do not already exist. It is not clear how local communities are supposed to protect under the control of national government. Also there are no culturally significant wildlife management structures.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Activities planned are great but budget is too big for them.

Evidence B:Not clearly understood.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: The budget being asked is too big for the planned activities. Salary component is too big. Information given on staffing is not clear. More details in staffing may shed some good light.

Evidence B:Institutional arrangements are problematic for the realization of the proposed objectives.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: There are possibilities on work being done on the ground.

Evidence B:Only in-kind as indicated above.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: 2/5

Evidence A: Benefits would be great if that forest gets to rehabilitated even to half of its original size with the correct species of trees.

Evidence B:Not clear.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The cultural practices of the original IPLC in the area are what needs to be promoted with other IPLCs around the lake.

Evidence B:Not realistic for present time.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: There are tangible outcomes in the planned approach.

Evidence B:Not provided.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Very much as government polices are promoting protection of biodiversity and Wildlife

Evidence B:The EOI mentions the rehabilitation of the Gwassi forest and removal of the water hyacinth both of which which are in line with national priorities. But they neither align with ICI nor with the cultural contribution by the local communities.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: Gender mainstreaming is mentioned but not well articulated.

Evidence B:It is not mentioned.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: NA/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: There is good science basis for the work as research is being done by KFRI .

Evidence B:It is is not demonstrated how this is to happen.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 25/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 2/40

Average Total Score: 13.5/40



Performance of EoI 196 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: They are recognized but migration and influx is not being controlled.

Evidence B:The organization is registered as an NGO.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: NA/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: The partnership with the local Forest Association is a good link.

Evidence B:None demonstrated.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: 2/5

Evidence A: There are good connections with local leadership of the forest association.

Evidence B:None have been mentioned.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: NA/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: There is hope…..Staff composition has not been fully outlined. I have no idea how big and specific skills they have are difficult to establish as no full account has been given.

Evidence B:The EOI lists positions but does not include personnel or their qualifications.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: NA/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: From what has been mentioned, look ok…..

Evidence B:Not mentioned.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: NA/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: not sure….

Evidence B:Not demostrated.



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 18/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 8/30

Average Total Score: 13/30



Performance of EoI 196 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)